MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume II, Issue 135, 5 November 1874, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH, Thursday, November 5. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M.) GETTING INTO A TRAIN WHILST IN MOTION, Henry Williams was charged with this offence at the Christchurch Railway Station, The charge having been proved, accused was fined 20s. DRUNK AND INDECENT EXPOSURE, Thomas Pring was charged with being drunk and indecently exposing himself at the Christchurch Railway Station, and also with using obscene language. Fined 20s. DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. Dommico Rossali, for this offence, was lined ss. George Salver, for the same offence, was fiuecl 20s or 48 hours,

OBTAINING MONEY UNDER FALSE PRETENCES. W. J. MHlroy surrendered to his bail on this charge. Mr Garrick appeared for the accused. Chief-Detective Feast applied that the prisoner should be remanded to Dunedin. Mr Garrick strongly objected to this course being taken, stating that such a course would be one of extreme hardship to the defendants, and would involve him in very great expense. The offence had been committed here, and should be disposed of here. His Worship said he was in a little difficulty about this case, and therefore he would adjourn the case until Monday next, the 9th inst, at eleven, and in the meantime he would communicate with the Resident Magistrate at Dunedin. The same bail would be accepted. [Before C. C. Bowen. Esq, R.M., C. Clark, and J. F. Ford, Esqs, Assessors.] RAILWAY COMPENSATION. Richard May Morten appeared on a summons, which had been issued under the authority of the Immigration and Public Works’ Act Amendment Act, 1871, with respect to the question of disputed compensation for certain sections of land, his property, but required by the Government for the Racecourse and Southbridge Railway. Mr Duncan appeared on behalf of the Government; Mr Wynn Williams for Mr R. M. Morten. Mr Duncan briefly stated the case, and proposed to call evidence. Mr Wynn Williams objected that the course proposed to be taken, was contrary to the Act under which the proceedings were taken as proper notice had not been given. After some argument between the learned counsel, His Worship, after consultation with the assessors, said that any proceedings taken should be so instituted under the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act. The case then fell through, any further proceedings having to be carried out under the 44th clause of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, as notice had not been given under that Act as regarded by the statute. The only notice given being one under the Immigration and Public Works Act. The case was therefore dismissed. Wednesday, November 4. [Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M.] Civil Oases. BUCKLEY V MCILROY. This was a claim for £3O for breach of contract, in not forwarding the plaintiff to the Palmer River as agreed upon. £lO of the claim was for passage money paid, and £2O for detention, passage money from Dunedin to Lyttelton, and articles purchased, which had become useless through loss of passage. Mr W\ mi Williams appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Garrick for defendant. The plaintiff, in evidence, said he made a contract with defendant to take him to the Palmer River. The passage-ticket produced had been received from plaintiff and transferred by him to the barque Comet at Port Chalmers. He (plaintiff) had been forwarded to Dunedin by defendant in consequence of some arrangements falling through, and was referred to Mr R. B. Martin at that place. That gentleman refused to honor the ticket, and he (plaintiff) then telegraphed to Mr Mcllroy, but got no reply. He then returned to Christchurch, and, after some trouble, saw Mr Mcllroy at the telegraph office, who stated that he would repay the £lO passage money he had received, but would not pay any of the expenses incurred. (Mr Wynn Williams here handed to the bench the bill of particulars of expenses incurred through loss of passage). He declined Mr Mcllroy’s offer at the time. The witness was not cross-examined. Mr Garrick said that, though his client had merely acted for the agents, he was willing to pay back the £lO passage money received without prejudice, though he had no right to do so, and called W. J. Mcllroy, defendant,who stated that the plaintiff came tohim, applying forapassage to the Endeavour river. He (witness) managed to get a vessel, and, after he had made some arrangement, he found she would not be allowed to leave. He afterwards attended a meeting of the men, and told them the Custom’s authorities would not allow the vessel to go. He said that a vessel was laid on at Dunedin, and that he had received instructions from the agents to forward on passengers to her. He also told them he was merely acting for the agents, and would take the balance of their passage money if they liked to go by her. Fifty-four of them agreed to go, and paid the balance. The first contract with the men was a conditional one. The tickets were then altered to the Comet. Messrs Finlay and Co, and R. B. Martin and Co, were the agents of that vessel, and he had made arrangements with Finlay and Co. Mr Wynn Williams here took exception to any arrangements the defendant might have made being received as evidence, as he (defendant) had issued the ticket in his own name. His Worship (to defendant) —What steps did you take to have the men forwarded on. Defendant—l telegraphed to the owners and agents of the vessel, but did not forward the passage money. , Mr Garrick handed to the ;Bench the telegrams received from the agents, in which they promise to keep open fifty steerage and four cabin passages in the Comet. Examination of defendant continued : After the telegrams were received he did not forward the passage money taken, as it was a question of-account between the agents and himself. His Worship told defendant that an account possibly existed between himself and the agents, but at the same time, he had entered into a contract with the men for their passage, and the agreement had been broken. He (defendant) had taken the money, and steps should have been taken to secure the passages. Mr Wynn Williams said that as a matter of fact the men had been nonsuited in Dunedin in their claim against Messrs R. B. Martin. The plaintiff, re-called at the request of Mr Garrick and cross-examined by him, said that when the second instalment of passage money was paid defendant said the Customs would not allow the Especulador to go. and told those present that they would be transferred to the Comet at Port Chalmers. A witness named Mitchell, called, said he was present at a meeting of the passengers going by the Especulador, and Mcllroy, who was there, told them that the 'tween decks of that vessel were not high enough. He said he had received a telegram Irom Dunedin saying that sixty passengers could be taken by the Comet. Mr Mcllroy said at the meeting that they

could have their £5 back they had paid, but also said he would transfer to the Comet. When they got to that vessel at Port Chalmers, the captain refused to take them.

His Worship said that whatever the arrangements might have been with the agents at Dunedin, there had been a personal contract with the defendant, and the men ought not to be allowed to suffer. Judgment would be given for £24 and the usual costs.

This judgment decided two other similar cases against same defendant.